[Cites 17, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Guddu Singh @ Rupesh Kumar Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand ... ... Opposite ... on 18 February, 2026
Author: Ananda Sen
Bench: Ananda Sen
2026:JHHC:4708
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.A. No. 12176 of 2025
-----
Guddu Singh @ Rupesh Kumar Singh, S/o Late Tuntun Singh, resident
of Village Pasraha, PO PS Pasraha, Sub Division Khagariya, Dist.
Khagariya, Bihar.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Opposite Party
----
CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
----
For the Petitioner: Mr. Ashish Kumar Shekhar, Advocate
For the State: Mr. Azeemuddin, A.P.P.
----
05/18.02.2026 By way of this bail application, the petitioner prays for grant of
regular bail in connection with Kunda Police Station Case No.20 of 2017
corresponding to Sessions Trial No.418 of 2023, registered for offences under
Sections 302, 307, 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25(1-B)(a),
26, 27 and 35 of the Arms Act, pending in the Court of the Additional Sessions
Judge IV, Deoghar.
2. The case was taken up on 13.02.2026 when the respective
counsel for the parties argued their case at length.
3. It is alleged that the husband of the informant was murdered
because of some political rivalry. This petitioner was in jail and he was the
master mind behind the murder of husband of the informant.
4. Earlier thrice the prayer for bail of the petitioner has been
rejected. This is the fourth time the petitioner has moved this bail application
for grant of bail.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that at the time of
occurrence, the petitioner was in custody in connection with Gogri Police
Station Case No.70 of 2015. Learned counsel further submitted that charge
has already been framed and majority of witnesses have also been examined
by the prosecution, who have not stated anything showing complicity of this
petitioner. He submits that the informant herself has stated in her evidence
that at the time of occurrence the petitioner was in custody in Khagaria Jail.
6. Learned A.P.P. appearing for the State vehemently opposed the
prayer for bail of the petitioner. He submitted that it is this petitioner, who is
the mastermind in committing murder of informant's husband. By referring to
the antecedent report, learned A.P.P. submitted that the petitioner is involved
in number of cases. He also submitted that only 3 to 4 witnesses now remain
to be examined in this case and the same will be concluded within six months.
2026:JHHC:4708
He submitted that this is not a fit case for grant of privilege of bail to the
petitioner.
7. I have perused the records and antecedent report in respect of
the petitioner. Some of the witnesses have been declared hostile. There is a
threat perception upon witnesses also, which is apparent from the evidence of
P.W.6, the informant, who has stated in her evidence that the petitioner
threatens that if anyone gives evidence against him, he will kill him also. From
the criminal antecedent report in respect of the petitioner, it is apparent that
the petitioner is involved in the following cases: -
(i) Pasraha Police Station Case No.86/15 dated
18.06.2015 for offences under Sections
387/504/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
(ii) Gogri Police Station Case No.70 of 2015 dated
19.02.2015 for offences under Section 302 of the
Indian Penal Code and Sections 25(1-B)a/26/27 of
the Arms Act.
(iii) Pasraha Police Station Case No.119 of 2015
dated 26.08.2015 for offences under Sections 302/34
of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms
Act.
(iv) Parvata Police Station Case No.97 of 2015 dated
22.03.2015 for offences under Sections 25(1-
B)a/26/35 of the Arms Act and Section 414 of the
Indian Penal Code.
(v) Bihpur Police Station Case No.118 of 2002 for
offence under Section 364 of the Indian Penal Code.
(vi) Gogri Police Station Case No.58 of 2003 dated
20.03.2003, for offences under Sections 147, 148,
149, 307, 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section
27 of the Arms Act.
(vii) Parvat Police Station Case No.42 of 2003 dated
03.04.2003 for offences under Section 364(A) of the
Indian Penal Code.
(viii) Gogri Police Station Case No.114 of 2003 dated
09.05.2003 for offences under Sections 147, 148,
149, 307, 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section
27 of the Arms Act.
(ix) Pasraha Police Station Case No.10 of 2007 dated
05.12.2007 for offences under Sections 302/34 of the
Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
(x) Pasraha Police Station Case No.37 of 2008 dated
02.06.2008 for offences under Section 387 of the
Indian Penal Code.
2026:JHHC:4708
(xi) Pasraha Police Station Case No.35 of 2008 dated
06.06.2008 for offences under Sections 302/34 of the
Indian Penal Code.
(xii) Parvata Police Station Case No.224 of 2003
dated 14.11.2003 for offences under Sections 147,
148, 353, 307 of the Indian Penal Code and Section
27 of the Arms Act.
(xiii) Parvata Police Station Case No.90 of 2009
dated 12.03.2009 for offences under Sections 302/34
of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms
Act.
(xiv) Parvata Police Station Case No.41 of 2009
dated 01.03.2009 for offences under Section 364(A)
of the Indian Penal Code.
(xv) Parvata Police Station Case No.90 of 2009 dated
27.05.2009 for offences under Sections 25(1-
B)a/26/35 of the Arms Act.
(xvi) Parvata Police Station Case No.189 of 2009
dated 14.11.2009 for offences under Section 414 of
the Indian Penal Code.
8. Considering the nature of allegation against the petitioner coupled
with the number of cases against the petitioner as described in the Criminal
Antecedent Report, as also considering the threat perception and further
considering that only 3 to 4 witnesses remain to be examined in this case,
which will take trial to conclude within six months, as submitted by learned
A.P.P., I am not inclined to grant privilege of bail to the petitioner. The prayer
for bail of the petitioner in connection with Kunda Police Station Case No.20 of
2017 corresponding to Sessions Trial No.418 of 2023, registered for offences
under Sections 302, 307, 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25(1-
B)(a), 26, 27 and 35 of the Arms Act, pending in the Court of the Additional
Sessions Judge IV, Deoghar, is hereby rejected.
9. This bail application stands dismissed.
(Ananda Sen, J.)
Ranchi
Dated 18th February, 2026
Kumar/Cp-03
Uploaded on 18.02.2026
